No. 3] REMARKS ON NORTHERN LITHOTHAMNIA. 1 7 



Syn. Melobesia Lenormandi Farl. New Engl. Alg. (1881), p. 181, partim! 



Lithophyllum Lenormandi Gobi, Algenfl. Weiss. Meer. (1878), p. 21, saltern 

 pro parte! Fosl. Contrib. I (1890), p. 9, partim. 



Lithophyllum Lenormandi f. laevis Fosl. Contrib. II (189!), p. 10. 



Lithothamnion tenue Rosenv. Gronl. Havalg. (1893), p. 778! Non Kjellm. 

 Beringh. Algfl. (1889), p. 22, t. I, fig. 6—10? 



Lithothamnion Stromfeltii Fosl. f. macrocarpa, f. tenuissima Fosl. Norw. Lithoth. 

 (1895), p. 145, t. 22, fig. 12. 



Lithothamnion laeve Rosenv. Deux. Mem. Alg. Mar. Gronl. (1898), p. 14! 

 Borg. Alg. Mar. Faroes (1902), p. 401! Jonss. Alg. Mar. Icel. I (1901), p. 153! 

 Jonss. Alg. Mar. East. Greenl. (1904), p. 6! De Toni Syll. Alg. IV (1905), p. 1757. 

 Non Saund. Alg. Harr. Alaska Exp. (1901), p. 442! Nee. Setch. and Gardn. Alg. 

 Northw. Amer. (1903), p. 358 1 1 ) 



111 List of Lithoth. p. 7 I admitted Lithophyllum tenue Kjellm. 

 from the Behring's Sea as an independent species under the genus 

 Lithothamnion. But in Rev. Syst. Surv. Melob. I subsumed it as 

 a form of Lithoth. Iceve. The specimens I have seen of the said 

 alga are in all essentials consistent with Lithoth. Iceve both in 

 habit and in structure. The conceptacles of sporangia are depressed 

 hemispherical or almost disc-shaped, sometimes two or three con- 

 fluent, 350— 650 y. in diameter. They are in so far diverging from 

 typical Lithoth. Iceve, as they are a little less prominent than usual 

 in this species. But they seem to have been faintly developed and 

 are decaying. The fact is, however, hardly decidable from a few 

 specimens from a single locality. I, therefore, think it most correct 

 at present to maintain the species as an independent one till by a 

 larger material from the said area not only its relation to Lithoth. 

 Iceve, but also to the near Lithoth. calif ornicum, apparently much 

 varying, can be realized. The last mentioned species and Lithoth. 

 Iceve can hardly be identical 



On the other hand it is questionable, whether Lithoth. Iceve in 

 fact is something more than a form of Lithoth. flavescens. It is, 



') I have once had for determination samples of two of the specimens from 

 Alaska which are admitted by Saunders 1. c. under Lithoth. lave. I 

 much regret that they were relerred to this species. By .a more searching 

 inquiry of fragments of these specimens, I now find that they ought to be 

 referred to the near Lithoth. calif ornicum. It is sometimes difficult or almost 

 impossible to draw the line between these two species. They appear to 

 be in the same correlations as Ph. loculosum and Ph. compaclum. 



2 



